bimhouse

upsert_zoning_rule

[EN] Add/update a zoning regulation rule (coverage/FAR/slope/height limits) — admin only (admin_token). Applies to all houses matching (profile, zoning). / 用途地域の規制ルール (建ぺい/容積/斜線/高さ等) を追加・更新する。管理者のみ (admin_token)。(profile, zoning) に一致する全物件の houki に反映。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`zoning`	Yes	用途地域名 (部分一致キー。例: 第一種住居)
`far_pct`	No	指定容積率 %
`profile`	No	法域 (既定 Japan)。例: Japan / SpainCatalonia / UsaHawaii / France
`admin_token`	Yes	管理者トークン (必須)
`coverage_pct`	No	建ぺい率上限 %
`road_slope_d`	No	道路斜線勾配分母 (1.25=4)
`road_slope_n`	No	道路斜線勾配分子 (1.25=5)
`far_road_coefficient`	No	前面道路幅員容積率低減係数 (住居0.4/他0.6)
`north_slope_start_mm`	No	北側斜線起点高 mm (null=適用外)
`absolute_height_limit_mm`	No	絶対高さ制限 mm (null=なし)
`road_applicable_distance_m`	No	道路斜線適用距離 (m)

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool requires admin authentication and applies changes to all matching houses, but does not disclose upsert semantics (e.g., overwrite vs. merge), potential side effects, or error conditions. This provides only moderate transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, with two sentences covering purpose, scope, and admin requirement in both English and Japanese. Every word contributes value with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains the tool's effect and prerequisites but fails to describe the return value or upsert behavior (e.g., what happens on conflict). This leaves some gaps for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description groups parameters by category but does not add meaning beyond the existing schema descriptions for each parameter. No additional syntax, constraints, or nuances are provided.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool adds or updates a zoning regulation rule, specifying the types (coverage/FAR/slope/height limits) and its effect on houses matching a profile and zoning. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_zoning_rule and get_houki_rules.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description mentions 'admin only (admin_token)' as a requirement, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., delete_zoning_rule for removal). It implies usage for creating or updating rules but lacks explicit comparisons or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All bimhouse tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but some potential overlap exists (e.g., get_site_context and get_houki_rules both provide site conditions, and set_site_context vs. upsert_zoning_rule could be confused). Overall, descriptions help disambiguate.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tools predominantly use a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_house, update_house, set_visibility). A few outliers like houki_check and whoami break the pattern, but naming is mostly consistent.

Tool Count3/5

29 tools is heavy but covers a broad domain (house design, construction, catalog, contractors, admin). Some tools are niche (e.g., list_incomplete_addresses, set_forkable), but each serves a clear purpose. Could be streamlined.

Completeness4/5

Core operations for house lifecycle (create, read, update, check) are present. Lacks explicit delete/archive for houses (only set_visibility), and no tool to update site context directly (only set via set_site_context). Minor gaps but domain is well-covered.

Resources

Need Help?